‘Slam Dunks’ Belong in Basketball, Not Intelligence-Gathering on Syria

Thanks to one of America’s great intelligence debacles, this is a phrase that deserves to go away. At least as far as military operations are concerned.

Miami Heat forward LeBron James does some LeBron James stuff, Thursday, June 7, 2012, in Boston.
National Journal
Matt Berman
See more stories about...
Matt Berman
Aug. 29, 2013, 5:10 a.m.

Some­times, sports meta­phors have ab­so­lutely no use. Thanks to some ig­noble his­tory with Ir­aq, this is firmly the case with call­ing in­tel­li­gence a “slam dunk.”

There’s a big story out from the As­so­ci­ated Press Thursday morn­ing that cites mul­tiple U.S. of­fi­cials say­ing that the in­tel­li­gence ty­ing Bashar al-As­sad’s re­gime to the re­cent al­leged chem­ic­al weapons at­tacks in Syr­ia is “not a slam dunk.” The story re­futes, through an­onym­ous sources at least, Pres­id­ent Obama’s claim on PBS Wed­nes­day night that his ad­min­is­tra­tion has “con­cluded that the Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment in fact car­ried these [chem­ic­al at­tacks] out.”

And there’s more from the AP on just what the U.S. doesn’t know:

In­tel­li­gence of­fi­cials say they could not pin­point the ex­act loc­a­tions of As­sad’s sup­plies of chem­ic­al weapons, and As­sad could have moved them in re­cent days as U.S. rhet­or­ic builds. That lack of cer­tainty means a pos­sible series of U.S. cruise-mis­sile strikes aimed at crip­pling As­sad’s mil­it­ary in­fra­struc­ture could hit newly hid­den sup­plies of chem­ic­al weapons, ac­ci­dent­ally trig­ger­ing a deadly chem­ic­al at­tack.

Which sounds like a de­light. The AP also says that a “quest for ad­ded in­tel­li­gence to bol­ster the White House’s case for a strike” is the reas­on that an in­tel­li­gence re­port has not yet been re­leased pub­licly.

The thing is, though, no amount of in­tel­li­gence is ever really a “slam dunk.” That’s be­cause a “slam dunk” be­longs in pro­fes­sion­al bas­ket­ball, not in in­tel­li­gence-gath­er­ing par­lance. Be­cause, some­times, when it shows up there, very bad things hap­pen.

Take former CIA Dir­ect­or George Ten­et. In Decem­ber 2002, as the ad­min­is­tra­tion of George W. Bush was look­ing in­to a pos­sible at­tack on Ir­aq, Ten­et told the pres­id­ent that “it’s a slam dunk case” that Sad­dam Hus­sein had weapons of mass de­struc­tion. The Wash­ing­ton Post‘s Bob Wood­ward said that, in an in­ter­view with the pres­id­ent, Bush told him that ” ‘slam dunk’ is, as I in­ter­preted it, a sure thing, guar­an­teed.” Ten­et, while he ad­mits to us­ing the phrase, doesn’t think it had — or de­served to have — much of an im­pact on the pres­id­ent’s think­ing.

In real-life sports, a slam dunk isn’t even guar­an­teed. Just ask Mi­chael Jordan. If you really need a bas­ket­ball ana­logy for a fool-proof thing, maybe try a lay­up. But even that can go wrong. And the over­use of “slam dunks” in sports ana­lo­gies is really rather lazy. Slam dunks may be the most ob­vi­ous go-to, flashy com­pon­ent of bas­ket­ball. But they’re by no means the most beau­ti­ful or ex­cit­ing part of the game.

But, really, if an in­tel­li­gence “slam dunk” is what led the U.S. to be­lieve there were weapons of mass de­struc­tion in Ir­aq, wouldn’t we all be bet­ter served by, you know, no more slam dunks? Based on re­cent his­tory, you could really make the case that not hav­ing slam dunk in­tel­li­gence in Syr­ia is ac­tu­ally a good thing. Which is con­fus­ing! 

This needs to be stopped. But luck­ily, there’s a pretty simple way of know­ing when you’ve cor­rectly slam-dunked.

If after dunk­ing, you look like this …

CIA Dir­ect­or George Ten­et be­fore the Sept. 11 Com­mis­sion on Cap­it­ol Hill Wed­nes­day, April 14, 2004. (AP Photo/Charles Dhar­apak)

… then you’ve done something ter­ribly wrong.

What you’re look­ing for is something a bit more like this:

Ok­lahoma City Thun­der point guard Rus­sell West­brook after dunk­ing the ball against the San Ant­o­nio Spurs dur­ing the first half of Game 6 in the NBA bas­ket­ball West­ern Con­fer­ence fi­nals, Wed­nes­day, June 6, 2012, in Ok­lahoma City. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)
MOST READ
What We're Following See More »
SHE’LL HAVE A ROLE WITH CLINTON CAMP
Wasserman Schultz to Resign at Week’s End
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

"After hours of private talks," Debbie Wasserman Schultz agreed to step down as chair of the Democratic National Committee after the convention ends. In the wake of the convention intrigue, Hillary Clinton announced she's making Wasserman Schultz "the honorary chair of her campaign's 50-state program."

Source:
MARCIA FUDGE TO PRESIDE
Wasserman Schultz Stripped of Convention Duties
15 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz "will not have a major speaking role or preside over daily convention proceedings this week," and is under increasing pressure to resign. The DNC Rules Committee on Saturday named Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcia Fudge as "permanent chair of the convention." At issue: internal DNC emails leaked by Wikileaks that show how "the DNC favored Clinton during the primary and tried to take down Bernie Sanders by questioning his religion."

Source:
EARLY BUMP FOR TRUMP?
New Round of Polls Show a Tight Race
2 days ago
THE LATEST
  • A Rasmussen Reports poll shows Donald Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton, 43%-42%, the fourth week in a row he's led the poll (one of the few poll in which he's led consistently of late).
  • A Reuters/Ipsos survey shows Clinton leading 40%-36%. In a four-way race, she maintains her four-point lead, 39%-35%, with Gary Johnson and Jill Stein pulling 7% and 3%, respectively.
  • And the LA Times/USC daily tracking poll shows a dead heat, with Trump ahead by about half a percentage point.
BELLWETHER?
Candidates Deadlocked in Ohio
3 days ago
THE LATEST
17-POINT EDGE AMONG MILLENNIALS
Clinton Dominates Among Younger Voters
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

In an election between two candidates around 70 years of age, millennials strongly prefer one over the other. Hillary Clinton has a 47%-30% edge among votes 18 to 29. She also leads 46%-36% among voters aged 30 to 44.

Source:
×